Re: Digicam

[Kennedy McEwen <rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <3D03F50D.74C768AA@bway.net>, SKID Photography 
<skid@bway.net> writes
>But I think the grain *is* the image, so we agree to disagree.
>
Well, the grain is just the random alignment and clustering of silver 
halide crystals and dye clouds - so presumably you consider them to be 
the image as well.  That's another two or three orders of magnitude on 
image detail.  Then there are the atoms in each crystal - presumably you 
think they are the image as well.

Somewhere along the line the image information stops and what remains is 
the media detail, not image information.

Image resolution is NOT limited by grain alone - indeed film resolution 
rarely, if ever, reaches the level of visible grain.  Again, I suggest 
you examine some of the Kodak technical data sheets for their 
professional films, where much of this is explained in some detail and 
where you will find the grain index is not a measure of film resolution. 
If you take the time to run a few comparisons, you will find that grain 
is not even related to resolution, with some fine grain films having 
less resolution than larger grain alternatives.

So no, we don't agree anything - grain is NOT image and has little 
influence on the limiting resolution of an image on film other than as a 
coarse guide.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.